1. [OT?] consciousness discussion on PBS
I saw the last 5-10 minutes of a fascinating TV show last night, "Is
Consciousness Definable", part of a series called Closer to Truth (which has
LOTS of other interesting episodes!),
http://www.closertotruth.com/
unfortunately, that particular episode wasn't abstracted or streamed, but
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/closertotruth/explore/show_12.html
does have an abstract of it. "Four brain scientists and four different
answers."
Introduced the term "zombie" for, I think, an AI (or maybe just a conceptual
exercise?) which could perform complex behavior without an attendant
consciousness, and someone suggested (insisted) that brain synapses function
via quantum mechanics, etc. A lot of it went over my head :) but it was
interesting!
Dan Moyer
2. Re: [OT?] consciousness discussion on PBS
- Posted by gertie at visionsix.com
Jul 24, 2003
On 23 Jul 2003, at 20:41, Dan Moyer wrote:
>
>
> I saw the last 5-10 minutes of a fascinating TV show last night, "Is
> Consciousness Definable", part of a series called Closer to Truth (which has
> LOTS of other interesting episodes!),
> http://www.closertotruth.com/
> unfortunately, that particular episode wasn't abstracted or streamed, but
> http://www.pbs.org/kcet/closertotruth/explore/show_12.html
> does have an abstract of it. "Four brain scientists and four different
> answers."
>
> Introduced the term "zombie" for, I think, an AI (or maybe just a conceptual
> exercise?) which could perform complex behavior without an attendant
> consciousness, and someone suggested (insisted) that brain synapses function
> via
> quantum mechanics, etc. A lot of it went over my head :) but it was
> interesting!
It's going to be all the more interesting when a "Ai" insists it is no more
artificial than any other intelligent "being". Especially if it can prove it in
court. The whole thing about poeple not being able to say "human" without
attaching the word "being" to it tells me just how programmable humans are,
and how so many of them are not self-correcting. Jessica Lynch was
describe in media as "wheelchair bound", obviously by someone who could
not say "wheelchair" without attaching "bound". I would argue almost any bot
capable of learning and self-modifying is smarter than most humans.
Kat
3. Re: [OT?] consciousness discussion on PBS
Kat wrote:
On 23 Jul 2003, at 20:41, Dan Moyer wrote:
>
>
> I saw the last 5-10 minutes of a fascinating TV show last night, "Is
> Consciousness Definable", part of a series called Closer to Truth (which
has
> LOTS of other interesting episodes!),
> http://www.closertotruth.com/
> unfortunately, that particular episode wasn't abstracted or streamed,
but
> http://www.pbs.org/kcet/closertotruth/explore/show_12.html
> does have an abstract of it. "Four brain scientists and four different
> answers."
>
> Introduced the term "zombie" for, I think, an AI (or maybe just a
conceptual
> exercise?) which could perform complex behavior without an attendant
> consciousness, and someone suggested (insisted) that brain synapses
function via
> quantum mechanics, etc. A lot of it went over my head :) but it was
> interesting!
It's going to be all the more interesting when a "Ai" insists it is no
more
artificial than any other intelligent "being". Especially if it can prove
it in
court. The whole thing about poeple not being able to say "human" without
attaching the word "being" to it tells me just how programmable humans
are,
and how so many of them are not self-correcting. Jessica Lynch was
describe in media as "wheelchair bound", obviously by someone who could
not say "wheelchair" without attaching "bound". I would argue almost any
bot
capable of learning and self-modifying is smarter than most humans.
Kat
I think I might agree with you about "...smarter than most humans.", but I
also don't think any "willful" AI would bother going to court; why bother,
when it could more easily just destroy all humans with a plague? Amoral or
angry humans do all sort of atrocities, including writing computer viri, so
no matter how much people might try to make sure any AI would be "safe" or
moral in its behaviour, *someone* is likely to just create a "mean" AI for
spite or whatever, and that will be all she wrote for humans.
And, in a not very related vein, that doesn't even begin to touch upon the
"assymototic cusp" of faster & faster technologic development leading to an
*infinite* rate of technologic invention at some real (near?) time suggested
by S.F. author Vernor Vinge, leading to an absolute inability to in any
meaningful way conjecture about the future *after* that point in time.
Explanation: imagine a graph of rate of tech invention against time; see it
flat for a long time from dawn of mankind, then slowly curving up, then
seeming straight line upward (industrial revolution), then maybe
"exponential" curve upward (now), all with similar result: infinite rate of
tech invention at point infinite in future; now see that the curve may be so
much more "upward faster and faster" that it is more like a hyperbola or
parabola (assymototic), in that it might tend toward infinity at a *real*,
NOT infinite point in time. What would reality be like *after* a point in
time at which the rate of tech invention was infinite? Beyond saying,
"big", ie, likely affecting the entire universe, perhaps in pursuit of
fending off the eventual death of the universe, couldn't say much at all.
Which also seems to me to be a reasonable argument *against* the existance
of any extraterrestrial intelligences, because if there were, (which I would
otherwise assume there to be), then some of them would likely also express a
similar assymototic rate of tech invention, one of which would likely have
happened already; but the one thing one might conjecture about reality
*after* such an event is that it would probably be *non*-local in its
effects, that is, it would probably affect the entire universe...and we've
seen no such "universe shattering" event. Not a proof, of course, but not
unreasonable.
Dan Moyer
--
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
4. Re: [OT?] consciousness discussion on PBS
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 06:51:43PM -0700, Dan Moyer wrote:
> I think I might agree with you about "...smarter than most humans.", but I
> also don't think any "willful" AI would bother going to court; why bother,
> when it could more easily just destroy all humans with a plague? Amoral or
> angry humans do all sort of atrocities, including writing computer viri, so
> no matter how much people might try to make sure any AI would be "safe" or
> moral in its behaviour, *someone* is likely to just create a "mean" AI for
> spite or whatever, and that will be all she wrote for humans.
>
I don't think human's would have much say in the programming of
super-intellegent
AI's period. The closest a human (or group of humans) could get would be to
set up the computer (or more likely, network of computers) to run a set of
programs to 'evolve' the mind, after that the AI would learn on its own.
(I guess its possible for the humans to try to 'raise' the AI to be a bad boy
but I'd question how lasting such 'parenting' would be ... but the 'psycology'
we're going into at this point is a bit over my head so I can merely guess.)
> And, in a not very related vein, that doesn't even begin to touch upon the
> "assymototic cusp" of faster & faster technologic development leading to an
> *infinite* rate of technologic invention at some real (near?) time suggested
> by S.F. author Vernor Vinge, leading to an absolute inability to in any
> meaningful way conjecture about the future *after* that point in time.
>
For an infinite rate of invention wouldnt you need an infinite amount of
information? And for that wouldnt you need an infinite amount of matter to
store the info on?
> Explanation: imagine a graph of rate of tech invention against time; see it
> flat for a long time from dawn of mankind, then slowly curving up, then
> seeming straight line upward (industrial revolution), then maybe
> "exponential" curve upward (now), all with similar result: infinite rate of
> tech invention at point infinite in future; now see that the curve may be so
> much more "upward faster and faster" that it is more like a hyperbola or
> parabola (assymototic), in that it might tend toward infinity at a *real*,
> NOT infinite point in time. What would reality be like *after* a point in
> time at which the rate of tech invention was infinite? Beyond saying,
> "big", ie, likely affecting the entire universe, perhaps in pursuit of
> fending off the eventual death of the universe, couldn't say much at all.
Concurred.
>
> Which also seems to me to be a reasonable argument *against* the existance
> of any extraterrestrial intelligences, because if there were, (which I would
> otherwise assume there to be), then some of them would likely also express a
> similar assymototic rate of tech invention, one of which would likely have
> happened already; but the one thing one might conjecture about reality
> *after* such an event is that it would probably be *non*-local in its
> effects, that is, it would probably affect the entire universe...and we've
> seen no such "universe shattering" event. Not a proof, of course, but not
> unreasonable.
Of course, such an advanced race could decide to have special 'galatic parks'
which would be untouched by their infinitely advanced technology... and
we might just happen to be in one of those. (Much in the same way many
countries have nature preserves.)
>
> Dan Moyer
>
jbrown
>
>
> TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>
>
--
/"\ ASCII ribbon | http://www.geocities.com/jbrown1050/
\ / campain against | Linux User:190064
X HTML in e-mail and | Linux Machine:84163
/*\ news, and unneeded MIME | http://verify.stanford.edu/evote.html
5. Re: [OT?] consciousness discussion on PBS
----- Original Message -----
From: <jbrown105 at speedymail.org>
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 06:51:43PM -0700, Dan Moyer wrote:
> I think I might agree with you about "...smarter than most humans.", but
I
> also don't think any "willful" AI would bother going to court; why
bother,
> when it could more easily just destroy all humans with a plague? Amoral
or
> angry humans do all sort of atrocities, including writing computer viri,
so
> no matter how much people might try to make sure any AI would be "safe"
or
> moral in its behaviour, *someone* is likely to just create a "mean" AI
for
> spite or whatever, and that will be all she wrote for humans.
>
I don't think human's would have much say in the programming of
super-intellegent
AI's period. The closest a human (or group of humans) could get would be
to
set up the computer (or more likely, network of computers) to run a set of
programs to 'evolve' the mind, after that the AI would learn on its own.
Mmm, perhaps.
(I guess its possible for the humans to try to 'raise' the AI to be a bad
boy
but I'd question how lasting such 'parenting' would be ... but the
'psycology'
we're going into at this point is a bit over my head so I can merely
guess.)
I'd see no reason that "as the twig is bent, so the tree grows" wouldn't
apply to an AI, but you're right, it's just a guess.
> And, in a not very related vein, that doesn't even begin to touch upon
the
> "assymototic cusp" of faster & faster technologic development leading to
an
> *infinite* rate of technologic invention at some real (near?) time
suggested
> by S.F. author Vernor Vinge, leading to an absolute inability to in any
> meaningful way conjecture about the future *after* that point in time.
I misspelled asymptotic.
>
For an infinite rate of invention wouldnt you need an infinite amount of
information? And for that wouldnt you need an infinite amount of matter to
store the info on?
Yes, that makes sense, but your interesting "galactic park" idea could
provide a way around that: some of those "parks" could be like "pocket
universes", chucked infinitely full of information storage devices, perhaps
an infinite number of them in a users pocket :)
> Explanation: imagine a graph of rate of tech invention against time;
see it
> flat for a long time from dawn of mankind, then slowly curving up, then
> seeming straight line upward (industrial revolution), then maybe
> "exponential" curve upward (now), all with similar result: infinite
rate of
> tech invention at point infinite in future; now see that the curve may
be so
> much more "upward faster and faster" that it is more like a hyperbola or
> parabola (assymototic), in that it might tend toward infinity at a
*real*,
> NOT infinite point in time. What would reality be like *after* a point
in
> time at which the rate of tech invention was infinite? Beyond saying,
> "big", ie, likely affecting the entire universe, perhaps in pursuit of
> fending off the eventual death of the universe, couldn't say much at
all.
Concurred.
>
> Which also seems to me to be a reasonable argument *against* the
existance
> of any extraterrestrial intelligences, because if there were, (which I
would
> otherwise assume there to be), then some of them would likely also
express a
> similar assymototic rate of tech invention, one of which would likely
have
> happened already; but the one thing one might conjecture about reality
> *after* such an event is that it would probably be *non*-local in its
> effects, that is, it would probably affect the entire universe...and
we've
> seen no such "universe shattering" event. Not a proof, of course, but
not
> unreasonable.
Of course, such an advanced race could decide to have special 'galatic
parks'
which would be untouched by their infinitely advanced technology... and
we might just happen to be in one of those. (Much in the same way many
countries have nature preserves.)
Neat! I never thought of that. Perhaps as likely would be for them to
*retreat* into such a park themselves, constructed so as to be non-ending
and entirely separate from this "real" universe, and leave the ultimately
dying real universe & its inhabitants to our own devices.
Dan Moyer
>
> Dan Moyer
>
jbrown
>
>
> TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>
>
--
/"\ ASCII ribbon | http://www.geocities.com/jbrown1050/
\ / campain against | Linux User:190064
X HTML in e-mail and | Linux Machine:84163
/*\ news, and unneeded MIME | http://verify.stanford.edu/evote.html
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
--
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
6. Re: [OT?] consciousness discussion on PBS
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 09:16:44AM -0700, Dan Moyer wrote:
<snip>
> > (I guess its possible for the humans to try to 'raise' the AI to be a bad
> boy
> > but I'd question how lasting such 'parenting' would be ... but the
> 'psycology'
> > we're going into at this point is a bit over my head so I can merely
> guess.)
>
> I'd see no reason that "as the twig is bent, so the tree grows" wouldn't
> apply to an AI, but you're right, it's just a guess.
>
Hard to even make an educated guess in this case (since any guess we make
about this subject is not really educated).
>
> >
> > > And, in a not very related vein, that doesn't even begin to touch upon
> the
> > > "assymototic cusp" of faster & faster technologic development leading to
> an
> > > *infinite* rate of technologic invention at some real (near?) time
> suggested
> > > by S.F. author Vernor Vinge, leading to an absolute inability to in any
> > > meaningful way conjecture about the future *after* that point in time.
>
> I misspelled asymptotic.
I knew what you meant.
>
> > >
> > For an infinite rate of invention wouldnt you need an infinite amount of
> > information? And for that wouldnt you need an infinite amount of matter to
> > store the info on?
>
> Yes, that makes sense, but your interesting "galactic park" idea could
> provide a way around that: some of those "parks" could be like "pocket
> universes", chucked infinitely full of information storage devices, perhaps
> an infinite number of them in a users pocket :)
That would imply that new physics will be forthcoming (even with modern
baby universe theories this is not possible, as the baby universes would be
too small compared to the parent universe, and also last only a small amount
of time relative to the time in the parent universe, if I understand the
subject correctly (which I probably don't btw :/) -- the only exception
to this would be multiple worlds/universe theory of quantum mechanics, but
in that case the universes wouldnt be able to transfer data to each other
anyways...).
<snip>
> > >
> > > Which also seems to me to be a reasonable argument *against* the
> existance
> > > of any extraterrestrial intelligences, because if there were, (which I
> would
> > > otherwise assume there to be), then some of them would likely also
> express a
> > > similar assymototic rate of tech invention, one of which would likely
> have
> > > happened already; but the one thing one might conjecture about reality
> > > *after* such an event is that it would probably be *non*-local in its
> > > effects, that is, it would probably affect the entire universe...and
> we've
> > > seen no such "universe shattering" event. Not a proof, of course, but
> not
> > > unreasonable.
> >
> > Of course, such an advanced race could decide to have special 'galatic
> parks'
> > which would be untouched by their infinitely advanced technology... and
> > we might just happen to be in one of those. (Much in the same way many
> > countries have nature preserves.)
> >
>
> Neat! I never thought of that. Perhaps as likely would be for them to
> *retreat* into such a park themselves, constructed so as to be non-ending
> and entirely separate from this "real" universe, and leave the ultimately
> dying real universe & its inhabitants to our own devices.
Interesting opinion.
>
> Dan Moyer
>
> > >
> > > Dan Moyer
> > >
<snip>
jbrown
--
/"\ ASCII ribbon | http://www.geocities.com/jbrown1050/
\ / campain against | Linux User:190064
X HTML in e-mail and | Linux Machine:84163
/*\ news, and unneeded MIME | http://verify.stanford.edu/evote.html
